Quote:
Circular? Point?
The high living conditions of one group are sustained by the low wages of another lower group - seems pretty logical to me.
|
Jag, it isn't permissible to frame the definition of one thing in terms of another that points back to the first, like this: A=B; B=A. That is a circular definition. It also is Not Done to illustrate your definition by re-stating your initial point.
That over with, I will be happy to do either of the following:
1)take the definition of the 47 poorest countries shown in
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/databan...s/received.htm, the definition of poverty as shown in
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm, and the mushy definition of 'lifestyle' as a typical list of expenditures by a family of four whose income is $50K US/yr and see whether these 47 countries have -any- impact on it, or
2)point you to the aforementioned
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm and ask why the OECD and the UN president both think -lowering- trade barriers with "developing" countries is a swell idea - the idea to make -more- trade happen, not less, in case that was not obvious. Given that the thesis of your argument is that my lifestyle is somehow owes a debt to the poor in the third world, these organizations seem to be calling for more of the same.
This little exercise has made me profoundly grateful that I stuck with engineering and didn't try any of the pseudosciences, like business administration or sociology.